Trump and the Iraq Complex

There was no objective behind the negotiations conducted by the American administration with the Iranian side in Muscat and Geneva other than conveying a single message. The substance of that message is that the “Islamic Republic” must change. Change must occur, whether peacefully or by force. President Donald Trump did not hesitate to declare recently that the fall of the Iranian regime would be “the best thing that could happen.” From this perspective, one can understand the repeated insistence of the American president on rejecting the return of Nouri al-Maliki to the post of Prime Minister in Iraq. From the same perspective, one can also understand the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his transfer to New York along with his wife.

A carefully calculated process of encirclement is underway against Iran, accompanied by the continuous clipping of its wings after its expulsion from Syria and the practical elimination of Hezbollah, the crown jewel of the expansionist project of the “Islamic Republic.”

What must be noted at present is the determination within the American administration to return to Iraq. Trump appears to have what might be called an Iraq complex. The United States paid dearly for toppling Saddam Hussein’s Baathist familial regime in 2003. It paid in blood and in hundreds of billions of dollars, only for Iran to emerge as the sole victor in a war whose rationale remains unclear to this day, particularly regarding what drove the administration of George W. Bush to undertake it.

The renewed focus of the American president on the question of Nouri al-Maliki is not a mere coincidence in the current circumstances, which are marked by a dangerous escalation between the “Islamic Republic” on the one hand and both the United States and Israel on the other. It is a serious escalation, especially in light of the transfer of war by America and Israel into Iranian territory last June.

Within Trump’s mind lies a set of precise calculations, among them a calculation related to Iraq, which has fallen into Iran’s embrace. The Americans, specifically the administration of George W. Bush, handed Iraq to Iran on a silver platter. This appears to remain lodged in Donald Trump’s thinking, as he has undertaken to put an end to Iranian hegemony in the region, beginning with Iraq.

The United States brought Iraqi Shiite militias affiliated with Iran’s “Revolutionary Guard” and entrusted them with power in Baghdad. These militias hastened to turn against the American “occupier” and began serving Iranian interests. The Bush administration erred in everything it undertook in Iraq, particularly once it became clear that it possessed no coherent plan for the post-Saddam Hussein phase.

Trump also understands that the renewed launch of Iran’s expansionist project in the region began from Iraq. With the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, the balance of power in the region shifted. Likewise, with the fall of Iraq, Syria fell entirely into Iran’s hands, and Lebanon fell as well, where the “Islamic Republic” assassinated Rafik Hariri twenty-one years ago after determining that he stood as an obstacle to Iranian expansion, which fundamentally relies on investing in sectarian instincts and replacing state institutions with militias affiliated with the “Revolutionary Guard” in one Arab country after another.

King Abdullah II had warned of the dangers of handing Iraq to Iran even before the assassination of Rafik Hariri in February 2005. In October 2004, he spoke of the “Shiite Crescent” in its political meaning, as a Persian crescent stretching from Tehran to Beirut via Baghdad and Damascus. The Jordanian monarch made these remarks in an interview with the American newspaper The Washington Post. His words revealed his foresight and his penetrating understanding of the consequences that would follow Iran’s seizure of Iraq.

Since entering the White House in January 2016, Trump has focused on the Iranian threat. He tore up the agreement on the Iranian nuclear file that the Barack Obama administration had worked to achieve in 2015. This occurred in May 2018. In the early days of 2020, the United States eliminated Qassem Soleimani, commander of the “Quds Force,” the spearhead of Iran’s expansionist project. This took place shortly after Soleimani left Baghdad airport, having arrived from Beirut via Damascus airport, which had served as a secure transit point for the “Islamic Republic.” The elimination of Qassem Soleimani constituted a decisive turning point at the regional level. Nothing illustrates this more than the appearance of Hassan Nasrallah, the late Secretary-General of Hezbollah, when speaking about Soleimani’s character and the nature of the relationship that bound him to him at every level, including coordination between Iran and the party in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and in more than one Gulf state.

Trump returned to the White House approximately a year and a month ago. He returned under new circumstances in which Iran had weakened and its expansionist project had become a thing of the past after the “Islamic Republic” lost all the wars it fought on the margins of the Gaza war.

From this perspective, it appears entirely natural to pursue the campaign against Iran beginning with Iraq, which can no longer be permitted to remain a playground for the “Revolutionary Guard,” as Lebanon and Syria once were before Israel assassinated Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut’s southern suburbs and before Bashar al-Assad fled to Moscow.

It is not important to delve into the labyrinths surrounding the personality of Nouri al-Maliki or to attempt to measure the degree of Iranian influence over him. For Trump, what matters is Iran’s departure from Iraq. It is unnatural for America to remain trapped in the Iranian snare. In the end, Iraq has been governed since 2003 by individuals who returned to Baghdad atop American tanks. Donald Trump rejects this ingratitude with which the American war on Iraq was met twenty-three years ago.

Now, after the Trump administration has placed Iran before the choice of surrender or exposure to a broad attack from sea and air, it appears logical for Trump to seek the recovery of Iraq if the objective is truly to bring Iran’s expansionist project to an end.